Opinion
25539-10W
12-22-2023
ALBERT G. HILL, III, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Peter J. Panuthos Special Trial Judge
On August 18, 2022, the Court issued an order granting petitioner's Motion to Supplement the Record, insofar as allowing the witness testimony of Cynthia Camuel, James Hogan, and the IRS Appeals Officer responsible for the appeal of the taxpayer's claim for refund, to be included in the administrative record. On October 12, 2023, respondent filed a Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Rule 103 with accompanying attachments. Respondent indicated he was requesting a protective order from petitioner's request for production of the IRS Independent Office of Appeals' administrative file (Appeals File) of the target taxpayer in this case.
"The purpose of discovery in the Tax Court is to ascertain facts which have a direct bearing on the issues before the Court." Ash v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 459, 463 (1991). Rule 72 permits a party to seek production of documents through a request which sets forth the items that are sought and described "with reasonable particularity. However, for good cause, the Court may issue an order to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Rule 103. The burden is on the party seeking the protective order to establish "good cause." Estate of Yaeger v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 180, 189 (1989).
Respondent asserts that: (1) discovery had concluded; (2) petitioner had previously requested the Appeals File and had been denied; and (3) the request for the Appeals File was an attempt to delay the case and cause annoyance, undue burden, and undue expense.
On July 24, 2013, the Court ruled on petitioner's Motion to Compel concerning the production of documents which included the Appeals File. During subsequent proceedings, the Court was informed of the destruction of electronically stored information and accordingly the Court determined that the unique circumstances of this case necessitate limited supplementation of the record. As the relevant events occurred more than a decade ago and due to the destruction of electronically stored information, additional background information is required to determine whether the Whistleblower Office considered all relevant factors in making its determination. Therefore, we will deny respondent's Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Rule 103.
Previously, the Court indicated that the parties should communicate with one another to consider possible dates for the Court to hear testimony. The Court is inclined to schedule the proposed "in person" evidentiary hearing in the near future. The Court will conduct that hearing in Washington, DC. The Court will be available during the weeks of March 25, April 8, April 15, and April 22, 2024. It is suggested that the parties confer and advise the Court as to an agreed requested date.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Rule 103, filed October 12, 2023, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that respondent shall on or before January 19, 2024, provide to petitioner a copy of the Appeals File. It is further
ORDERED that the parties shall on or before January 19, 2024, file status report(s) (joint or separate) providing information as directed herein.